Apart from Triangulation, what other techniques I can use to increase validity of qualitative research particularly in context of IPA(Interpretative Phenomenological Study)?
Work with your supervisors and go through your reasoning. Remember that the interpretive process will be underpinned by your own practice. I recommend reading James Peacock The Anthropological Lens: Harsh light soft focus, to help you to 'see' your own cultural influences on your interpretation.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/anthropology/anthropological-theory/anthropological-lens-harsh-light-soft-focus-2nd-edition?format=PB
Hi Rakesh,
The issue of validity of qualitative data rests on the credibility of the data and the verification of the findings. In this sense, validity (at least in its statistical sense) is not really the issue. Unlike experimental designs that work hard to CONTROL the relevant variables that are important to the studied phenomenon so there is a requirement of strong internal validity (often to the detriment of external validity), in qualitative research we seek authenticity of the phenomenon studied and then try to ACCOUNT for the variables of relevance. Establishing credibility of the findings through various kinds of verification procedures is generally what is employed. As such, verification methods in qualitative research revolve around relating or comparing multiple data types to support or contradict various interpretations for, as Eisner suggested, there must be a "confluence of evidence that breeds credibility".
What are some of these verification procedures? As you suggested, triangulation can be one (though people often ignore some of the more important aspects of triangulation...see the attached piece from the Encyclopedia of Deviance), Strip analysis as described by Michael Agar in "speaking of Ethnography" is another type of process that (when correctly conducted) increases credibility. Lamination techniques whereby the apparent conclusions of the examiner based upon the actual data are provided to the field participants and they are asked to comment (i.e., lay another layer of interpretation on top of that created by the researcher) is a third. The idea of the Constant Comparative Method described by Glaser and Strauss in their early collaborations in Grounded Theory is also oriented to this issue (though Glaser and Strauss seem to have developed divergent ideas subsequent to that time .. see the work of Charmaz to get a better handle on this and verification in Grounded Theory).
Specifically with regard to Phenomenology and IPA, you need to remember that the actual "lifeworld" or lived experiences of the participants that they relate to the researcher is considered real and valid phenomena and worthy – even an essential – target of inquiry. According to Giorgi & Giorgi (2003; 2005) since Methodological Phenomenology is based upon Philosophical Phenomenology (if I may make such a distinction for this point) and that Husserl following Brentano regards the constructed and interpretive quality of lived experience as the basis of knowledge so that the focus is on those individuals who have lived through an experience; this lived experience (obtaining it and determining whether there are reported experiences by the participants being interviewed that form a pattern of meanings) becomes the legitimate and CREDIBLE goal of Phenomenology.
Chapter Triangulation.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research